--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 3:07 PM +0000 3/14/03, Piers Cawley wrote: > >Brad Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Piers Cawley wrote: > >> [...] > >>> Nope, send it to TPF as discussed. It's what I've said in all > the > >>> summaries after all. I just hope that a chunk of it ends up in > Larry's > >>> pocket. > >> > >> Does anyone know if TPF is set up to allow earmarked > contributions? > > > >Dunno. But I'm merely expressing a preference. TPF can do with it > what > >they will. > > Earmarked contributions are apparently somewhat dodgy from an IRS > perspective--they don't want folks setting up a 503(c)(3) to do > payroll stuff as a way to avoid taxes. (Rather than have an employee > you have a grantee of a charity, thus the money you use to pay that > person becomes a tax deduction, or something like that) > > The TPF's grant fund stuff's OK, though. It's just a matter of > getting a grantee for this year... (Working on that)
This doesn't seem right. The United Way runs "directed drives" all the time, in which they raise money for a particular cause. (And tap me on the shoulder...) There's no reason the TPF couldn't run a "Fund P6" drive. =Austin
